>> what do you think of when you see a tree? the treatment for cancer? alternative fuel for our cars? do you think of hope for the environment, or food, clothing,

shelter? we do. weyerhaeuser. growing ideas. >> if americans of every background stand up and say, enough, we have suffered enough pain and care too much of that our children to allow this to continue, then change will come. >> this week, the right to keep and bear arms. is it being infringed? >> if he tried to override the second amendment, i believe it would be an impeachable offense. >> is it being abused? >> if you think this will not happen to you and you will not be touched by gun violence, you are fooling yourself. >> the debt ceiling debate continues. >> the real issue here is, we all know, is spending. >> what are the risks of huge

dispense cuts? >> operation commitment, and trading will be gutted. we will ground aircraft, return ships to port, and sharply curtail training across the force. >> a bill before the while the state legislature would make a federal legend try to enforce a ban on arms federal -- guilty of a felony. there are similar measures in texas. the governor of mississippi want to make it illegal in the state to makin force any new gun laws. how many times have we had this debate? this time after the massacre in connecticut, the president says it is different. the president has said 23 executive order is aimed at reducing gun violence and is urging congress to reduce -- and

it back crunchers' for all gun sales purity is also asking americans to put heat on members of congress to get there. >> ask for a member of congress if they support universal back rent checks to keep guns out of the wrong hands. if they say no, ask them why not. >> the nra response was predictably immediate. >> are the president's kids more important than yours? why is he's skeptical about putting our security in schools? his daughter's school are armed by security guards. mr. obama demand the wealthy pay their fair of taxes but there he is just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. protection for their kids and gun-free zones for hours. -- for ours. >> at the white house, and jay carney said that ad was repugnant and cowardly. the nra says the ad is not in anyone's child in particular and anyone the claims otherwise is

intentionally trying to change the topic were missing the point. incidentally, once the president stopped -- started to talk about curtailing gun violence, gun sales went through the roof. >> it is true public opinion has changed and there is more desire for gun-control than ever, but i do not think congress will budge on the bic stuff. it is not going to get done. it is posturing. with the nra did was odious. i think the president is on the high ground but he will not get done real gun-control. >> these 23 executive actions were fairly trivial, there was nothing major about it. i think it will not have any effect. it was an appearance of motion. the three big items on the table for the congress, assault weapons ban, the limit on the magazine clip, and universal background checks, i think the last one has very strong public

opinion behind it. it is likely to pass. the other two are not likely to pass. >> charles is right, in the 80%- plus range approval rating for the idea of universal background checks, but i'm still not convinced it will pass. because of the influence of the gun lobby and the way we have redistricted so that we have so many safe seats. you can tell something about the tenor of this debate by the fact that you saw the former attorney general, members of congress -- one member put in an article of impeachment against the president over his executive orders, before they were even out. the executive orders, charles is right, there is not much. not that he has the power to do much. he does not. he knows he doesn't have much . >> first of all, the nra ad on

invoking the president's daughters, was beyond tone deaf. it was mean-spirited, small- minded, and below the belt. they are harmful to the enter a's position. that is just a preliminary. let me give me these facts. in the 236 years of this country, from the revolutionary war all the way through both world wars, the following numbers, 659,073 americans have died fighting for their country. since robert kennedy had a bullet put in his brain and the ambassador hotel in los angeles, in 1968, 1,260,781 americans have died from firearms. 80% of all the firearms deaths, in the first world, the 22 countries in the first world, are here in the united states. that is not american exceptional is and that we can be proud of.

if we cannot agree as a people to do something about that -- we did about cigarettes, thank god. and we have made progress. if we cannot do it, let's toss the whole towel in doubt. >> what happened with cigarettes is we had a deep glamorization campaign. it became uncool. we had tremendous success. smoking has been cut in half and about 50 years. it is the result of a culture. if we are talking about shootings and guns in this country, the equivalent would be the glamorization of the guns in hollywood, videogames, in the culture, and television. you would want to start with that, but nobody in power would even speak about that. the other elements are the commitment of the dangerously mentally ill, and they're the aclu and other lobbies are very strong. in those states where the commitment laws are strong,

there is a love love this kind of violence. i agree with you. lastly, the elimination of guns. i think the only weaken over it achieve anything is the way australia did. 1996, they had a massacre, and confiscated the guns, and there were none. that cannot be done. you cannot do it in this country with its history, culture, and second amendment. >> the problem is, if you cannot do everything, you do nothing. that is not what you are looking for. we are not go to confiscate all guns in the united states. >> that will have no affect. >> that is not true. >> i would point this out of tobacco. when i was in the marine corps, a carton of lucky strikes was $2 for 10 packs. now it is $9 a pack. it was not just simply the

culture. they put a cost on it. we ought to put a cost on ammunition. we ought to put a tax on that. bullets ought to be prohibitively expensive. >> a well regulated militia to keep the security of the people, to keep and bear arms. does that speak to the right of securing the nation through a well regulated defense establishment, or does it greenlight some guy in new york to out his garage like an armory? >> the supreme court defers on this. they have basically upheld the second amendment. it does give the protections to gun owners, and it makes it somewhat of a moot issue. this is mostly for show right now. it is a diversion -- i'm all for gun-control -- but it will not happen. it is a diversion from what we need to do, which is dealing with issues like debt, the climate, which polish and do not want to deal with. it is a side show. >> i do not think it is a side

show when you have massacres like we have had in the last year. not just newtown. justice scalia's opinion actually said that the government is free to regulate the kinds of weapons that people carry. it says that. >> if your therapist thinks you could be a threat to someone, could he or she be required to turn you in? in new york state, yes. >> it is not that he needed a great computer system to figure out a solution, it was common sense. mentally ill people should not have access to guns. criminals should not have access to guns. >> common sense, but we will see how easy it is to enforce. andrew cuomo signed the toughest law in the nation dealing with guns. the purpose was to keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. the shooters at virginia tech and colorado have both received little help counseling. under the new law, the top

professionals believe it is unethical to use it and illegally have to be reported to limit of director and that person in turn has to go to the state criminal justice establishment which could then go after the fire arms. critics say this all 5 the doctor-patient relationship, at least in the mental-health field. we have a board to a defense psychiatrist. what do you think of this law? >> there is nothing new here. in just about everything to you and, if a patient tells you that they want to kill someone or themselves, you not only have the right to go and won the person or tell the authorities, or commit the person, as i have done, in some states, like massachusetts, where i practice, you have an affirmative obligation. this is another executive order that has been put into motion, it doesn't change anything, that is the way it has always been. those on the right who are talking about a new norm in doctor-patient relationship, it is not.

this is the way it has always been. >> this skirts and much more difficult question in some ways. anyone who deals with public health at all, police, trauma surgeons, like my husband, these people, usually younger males, who are clearly -- have psychotic breaks over and over again. their families are at despair of what to do about it. there is no ability to commit them for any sustained period of time. once they are not an immediate threat to themselves or others, you cannot hold them. >> we still have state mental institutions, and then we had a lawsuit, dixon v. weinberg. those institutions opened up, and in many cases, the people in them did not have any place to go except the streets. >> we are not going back to that. those institutions were barbaric and medieval and we -- because people have constitutional rights and legal

rights, we are not going back to that. >> but there is no place to put to write down. you could wait weeks to put someone in a bed who is extremely ill. >> you have new york and andrew cuomo, wyoming, where you can walk into the public gallery in the state legislature with a firearm. >> and bars. >> only 26 states ban guns are all is served. >> and get the massacre happened in connecticut, not wyoming. >> true. >> states obviously have different cultures, different values, different political imperatives. that is the reality of new york with the sullivan law, which was the most draconian, some would say, most progressive control of private fire arms of any place in the country.

as i look at this right now, are we not about to go into the debate over privacy versus public safety? isn't that where we are treading into? it just strikes me -- charles could answer better than i. the whole treatment out of people who are mentally disturbed is pharmacological. it is not institutional. just another prescription. am i wrong? >> that is true, and the tragedy, when -- in the kennedy era, when he started the community of mental health service, the idea was to close the snake pits, he put them in the community, give the medication, which was new, invented in 1959, and the continuing care. the problem is, they closed the snake pit, the have the drugs, but they never built these local community facilities. so you are released and discharged on medication.

you stop, you are then psychotic, and you never restart your medication again. >> they are not going to. states do not have any money. they are so busy paying for pensions and prisons, there is no money for this. >> more on the debt ceiling debate. >> america cannot afford another debate with this congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they already racked up. the financial well-being of the american people is not leveraged to be used. the full faith and credit of the united states of america is not a bargaining chip. >> "america has a debt problem and pillar of leadership. americans deserve better. i therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase american debt limit." senator barack obama, march 16, 2006. how about them apples? >> it is not good for obama. but he also -- he also knew that his boat was not vote to make a difference.

>> come on. he said what he said. >> of course he said what he said. i am covering for him. i am just saying people do different things at different times. >> there has been a shift here, a deeply depressing column by david brooks on friday that says the era of the grand bargain, as he calls it, is over. there was a feeling over the last couple of years that both sides might get together and raise taxes and cut entitlements and get a grand bargain to deal with the debt. that seems to be a lost opportunity. obama seems to be moving away from it, congress. they are going to get in these fractious squabbles over the debt ceiling but they are not going to deal with the essential problem in a meaningful way. >> i am reading robert carroll's book on lbj. jack kennedy, it looked like he was having the same problem with the congress. early on, lbj was having the same problem, that everything was being sidetracked. >> that is true. i would say this as far as what

senator obama said in 2006, quoting mr. johnson. consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. there was a different attitude, and we have raise the debt ceiling 70-plus times, the congress has voted to do it, and there has always been that sense of we are not going to vote to raise the other guys debt ceiling, but there was always the understanding that we would provide the votes in the final analysis. the president's party did that. right now you have a situation where the republican party is reduced to its lowest standing in the history of the wall street journal nbc pulled to 23% favorable, 47% unfavorable. the only thing that is worse is john boehner. 18% favorable. this is not a formidable partner. >> over the weekend, politico

reported that a lot of house republicans threaten to shut down the government. they need to make shut down in or to get out of the system. we may need to do that for member-management purposes so that they can have an end game and show their constituents they are fighting to get it out of the system? this is not a gastrointestinal problem, this is the government. >> i would suggest therapy and not shutting down the government here that would be the compromise. i would offer it for free, if they really wanted to. the republicans have had a pretty unhappy experience with brinksmanship. twice in the gingrich years they shut down the government and they got shellacked. they tried to force the issue using the debt ceiling in 2011 and using the fiscal cliff in january. i was as gung-ho as any of them to force obama into cutting spending in a government -- the

government is spending us into penury. but it failed. the reason is, you cannot govern from one house of congress. that is the lesson. that is the truth. i wrote a column this morning saying, you have to recognize you cannot use these things because in the and you will have to cave. will be humiliated, your ratings will be low, as mark indicated, and you will not get the spending cuts anyways. realism has certainly taken over republican leadership, and i do not think that the republican house is going to want to go over the cliff. >> look and what has happened. the president has gone from dealing with the big problem that faces the whole country, to trying to destroy the republican party. is exactly what the public does not want. that is what is happening. we are turning into small, petty

brinksmanship. let's see if we could crush the republican party. he has given up on a larger and more noble goal of doing something. >> the reason he has given up -- i will not say who is right or wrong in the negotiations. there were very close. the reason this grand bargain has twice fallen through is that boehner knew that he could then sell it to his membership. when you do not have somebody to negotiate with, then you play as hard ball as you have to. of doing something. >> i have to conclude, evan is wrong. republicans, when the organize a firing squad, they form themselves in a circle. that is what the group is doing. barack obama is not doing their destruction, they are doing it themselves. >> if congress enacts $500 million in defense cuts, what happened then? he said armed services committee announced that it has hearings on chuck hagel's nomination to become defense secretary. if confirmed, he will have his hands full, especially with these defense cuts. there is talk about pulling a carrier out of the gulf, we only have one there. i would think, what is happening

in algeria and other places, you'd want to have two or more. >> you could probably cut the defense budget by a lot. the question is how. congress and the politicians are going to want to preserve the big-ticket items, the platforms that are i expensive, provide js in districts, and they will cut the things that we really need, ready this, maintenance, money for the troops. congress will be on the wrong side of it. i hope the administration can move the ball here. >> he is right. the only way to cut out obsolete bases was to appoint a commission so that it would not be political, then congress can only say yes or no. i think it ought to appoint a commission that looks at where you cut spending, and do the exact same procedure, yes or no, nothing else. >> in evan's book, there is a moment where eisenhower says -- the secretary of defense says we cannot cut anymore.

eisenhower says, just go to every base and tell them that they will get another star if they cut. i guarantee you will be killed in a stampede. >> charles wants a commission that has these thoughts and congress votes on it. we had that. it was called simpson-bowles. the republicans have talked that effort. i agree, defense spending can be cut, but look at one thing, personnel has skyrocketed because of an all-volunteer force. >> what can we afford? walter pincus had a column in "the washington post) this week talking about the reserve policy board. we can no longer afford the all volunteer military if we plan to pay allowances and retirement benefits for the troops and their families. >> one tricky thing is we have very generous health benefits from the military. the military deserters society's

protections, but if you look at those numbers, -- not just soldiers -- but it is their families and extended families. it is a sacred cattle. that is the kind of thing you have to do. >> every defense secretary has wanted to cut it for a couple of decades now and congress has no. >> the story of the last 60 years is that european disarmed and spent the money on entitlement state. it is a good choice, they have a decent society. but the reason they were able to do it, they were under the american umbrella. if we spend all our money, medicare, medicaid, social security, entitlements, all humane, generous ideas, it will not have the defense is the establishment. there is no country that is behind us that will protect us and the west. that is the american dilemma. it has always been a free rider problem to europe has written -- and on our backs. if we go the way of europe,

there is nobody to protect us for the rest of the world. >> but you can overspend yourself in the military into oblivion, again, as eisenhower said. >> under eisenhower, it% of gdp. >> and he thought that was too much. >> we are a third of that now. >> defense spending as a percentage of gdp and the federal budget has declined, that is true. >> and in absolute terms the defense budget has doubled in the past 10 years. doubled in cost. you're telling me that there is not that in there to be cut? i would just point out, at the risk of being johnny one-note, before the all volunteer service, private first class in the u.s. military was paid the principal sum of 900 texting dollars a year. contrast that with 23,000. you are immediately incurring costs, plus you know have a

married military. when you had 18, 19-year-old being drafted to serve, they were not given that you have half the troops being married and more than three-quarters of the officers. so you talk about the health care cost, family cost, all of which we want to do, but that just in flights the cost of the military as well. >> as a private and $86 a month and i spent all breakfast. >> you did not, you spent it on beer and cigarettes, like everyone else. >> my family might be listening. >> we are not going to bring back the draft. we can pay soldiers help the. but benefits for their families is another thing. or to the point, you have to cut these big, expensive items we do not need, these joint strike fighters, more carriers, landing craft. the marines had not invaded anybody -- >> as china is expanding its military force, don't we need to

be able to meet any potential threat? >> i am not saying cut the heck out of the navy, but you have to choose wisely on a platform that you build. we do not choose wisely, we fund them all. >> what about charles's commission idea? >> if the constitution says the commission is supposed to be the congress of the indicted states, but is dysfunctional at the moment. >> the military has cleverly spread out all the work for all the contracts and bought forms and all the states and districts. so would have to support everybody. you may need to go to a commission. >> that is the last word. thanks. see you next week. thanks. see you next week.

its auto insurance customers for over 70 years. more information on auto insurance at geico.com or 1-800-947-auto any time of the day or night.